Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Some car companies are operating without regard for a declining customer base

wardsauto.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 116 posts

Re: Some car companies are operating without regard for a declining customer base

#21

Post by vrganj »

ExoticPearTree wrote: post #13
margalabargala wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt that here. Cars are already near saturation, at least in the US. Essentially everyone has a car. The car is mostly idle. If car availability starts to approach instant then people don't need personal vehicles that are idle 95% of the time. Car quantity overall goes down unless you can 20x current utilization, which is a lot of trips and fuel. Not to mention that if anything resembling current quantity of exta…

> If the thesis is "cars will approach 50% or greater utilization" then car numbers must drop barring a massive increase in road capacity for which the land does not exist. You can build stacked roads a few levels up. Capacity doubles or triples without any significant land use.

That sounds like an absolute dystopian nightmare. Can we instead just design cities so they don't depend on cars as much?

Visit Amsterdam, then visit LA. Tell me which place is more pleasant to be in.

Re: Some car companies are operating without regard for a declining customer base

#22

Post by danny_codes »

vrganj wrote: post #18
mg wrote: post #9

Because a single autonomous vehicle operating in a shared fleet can replace multiple privately owned cars, the widespread adoption of this technology can’t help but reduce new-car sales volumes. The old "Thing will become more useful so we'll make less of it" argument. No mention of Jevons Paradox? If we can travel and send stuff around from point A to point B cheaply and instantly by dropping ourselves or an item in…

This is the dumbest possible approach. We don't need fleets of autonomous vehicles, each carrying two tons of metal for transporting a person or two and clogging up cities. We just need a train network that doesn't suck.

Well if we did that we'd only save 40,000 lives and ~$1T in transit costs a year. Such savings and improvements in quality of life are unthinkable in the US! \s

Re: Some car companies are operating without regard for a declining customer base

#23

Post by thinking_cactus »

magic_hamster wrote: post #10

A few points worth contending. First, personal flying vehicles are definitely not going to be a common mode of transportation. If and when this happens, it will be for ultra rich, select few people, effectively replacing a private helicopter. We don't have the infrastructure, regulation or technology to have millions of people buzzing around in their astro-ford like the fifth element - this is still very much science…

> First, personal flying vehicles are definitely not going to be a common mode of transportation. If and when this happens, it will be for ultra rich, select few people, effectively replacing a private helicopter.

I wonder what it would be like for most cars to be replaced with flying cars (i.e. helicopters). I think the noise alone would be a huge issue. Helicopters can be heard from extremely far away and are quite noisy. If you multiply that by like 1 million in a metropolis, I think that would approach unbearable, specially at nighttime, etc.. Also I don't think noise can be reduced too much, including electric propulsion. Propeller engineering would give you some reduction but still I think too much for near universal usage.

But I think the main thing is just cost. Electric aircraft like that would really be just too expensive for everyone to have em. Not everyone can afford a good old (electric) automobile today.

There's also battery technology needing a significant improvement.

Regulation and infrastructure is comparatively solvable I think.

Re: Some car companies are operating without regard for a declining customer base

#24

Post by jgilias »

magic_hamster wrote: post #10

A few points worth contending. First, personal flying vehicles are definitely not going to be a common mode of transportation. If and when this happens, it will be for ultra rich, select few people, effectively replacing a private helicopter. We don't have the infrastructure, regulation or technology to have millions of people buzzing around in their astro-ford like the fifth element - this is still very much science…

The automobile itself was initially nothing more than a toy for the rich and powerful.

Re: Some car companies are operating without regard for a declining customer base

#25

Post by pmontra »

You sell less to people living in the cities but maybe you sell more to the operators of fleets of rental cars, even self driving if that really becomes mainstream. Not enough to match the decrease of sales.

You keep selling to people living in countryside, where you don't go anywhere without a car and where fleets of cars would have to be very large to be able to cover the territory in a meaningful way. There will be less and less people living there but it could affect the kind of cars that are manufactured. By the way, a self driving car would be very useful to elderly people living in their house far away from the nearest town.

In any case, less cars.

Re: Some car companies are operating without regard for a declining customer base

#26

Post by mg »

margalabargala wrote: post #12
mg wrote: post #9

Because a single autonomous vehicle operating in a shared fleet can replace multiple privately owned cars, the widespread adoption of this technology can’t help but reduce new-car sales volumes. The old "Thing will become more useful so we'll make less of it" argument. No mention of Jevons Paradox? If we can travel and send stuff around from point A to point B cheaply and instantly by dropping ourselves or an item in…

I doubt that here. Cars are already near saturation, at least in the US. Essentially everyone has a car. The car is mostly idle. If car availability starts to approach instant then people don't need personal vehicles that are idle 95% of the time. Car quantity overall goes down unless you can 20x current utilization, which is a lot of trips and fuel. Not to mention that if anything resembling current quantity of exta…

Cars that are idle 95% of the time are replaced less than once in a decade.

Cabs are replaced something like 3x more often than privately owned cars. And when they run 24/7 because of self-driving, that factor will even increase.

Re: Some car companies are operating without regard for a declining customer base

#27

Post by justaman123 »

owyn wrote: post #5

"Vertical Takeoff and Landing aircraft are on track to provide urban air transit within the next few years, targeting the high-margin commuters who traditionally buy premium vehicles." Okay. So... flying cars? Don't think so. Robotaxis make sense where taxis make sense and you can get by without a car already. The demographic decline is real.

They are talking about unmanned drones that operate as flying taxis. They have them in China. We will never have flying cars after 9/11 showed how flying objects can damage property.

Re: Some car companies are operating without regard for a declining customer base

#28

Post by ajmurmann »

ExoticPearTree wrote: post #14
magic_hamster wrote: post #10

A few points worth contending. First, personal flying vehicles are definitely not going to be a common mode of transportation. If and when this happens, it will be for ultra rich, select few people, effectively replacing a private helicopter. We don't have the infrastructure, regulation or technology to have millions of people buzzing around in their astro-ford like the fifth element - this is still very much science…

> We don't have the infrastructure, regulation or technology to have millions of people buzzing around in their astro-ford like the fifth element - this is still very much science fiction. If by flying cars you mean flying robotaxies, then all you need are landing pads. They can be easily accomodated on top of buildings. And regulation for what? We already know how to fky helicopters by autopilot, no need for innovat…

If they are supposed to replace cars we'd need so many of these landing pads. No idea how this is supposed to work. I'm the suburbs it's unclear where you'd put them. Where do I walk to fly this to Costco? Does it land on the Costco warehouse next to an entire line of these arriving instead of cars today?

In proper downtown areas I suspect even if you'd cover every rooftop in these it wouldn't be enough capacity

Re: Some car companies are operating without regard for a declining customer base

#29

Post by jmward01 »

Technology is a fickle thing. The first production passenger car was created in 1886. The model t came out in 1908. We have had cars for 150 years, but that doesn't mean that they will be the standard for the next 150 years. In my life I have seen the land line telephone and radio go from core fixtures in a house to rare techno-memorabilia. (My house actually has a telephone nook. How many houses have tv nooks built for old CRT displays that will never be needed?) If you told me 25 years ago I wouldn't have a land line in the future I would have been shocked. Now it is ridiculous to even consider getting one and I haven't had one for a decade. Can you even buy a land line phone anymore?

Transportation is going through many massive changes right now. I haven't driven to the office in a decade. Huge segments of the workforce are migrating to exoburbs because they don't need to drive to work anymore. My son hasn't mentioned wanting to drive. My neighbor's kid flat out says she doesn't want to learn (both will be able to soon) and many of their friends don't want to learn either. There is a generation growing up far less invested in the car than the generation before them. Some of the points in this article may not be perfect, predicting the future is a fools bet, but it sure feels like the trend they are bringing up is real.

Post reply on HN